All national, state, and local stakeholders must embrace literacy proficiency for all students. Teachers must engage in data-driven instruction and the continuous evolution of reading programs based on research. The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of the Balanced Literacy Reading Program
implementation at the K-5 elementary schools located in a large central Minnesota
district. The process of learning to read has been explored from a historical perspective as it relates to the child’s physical, cognitive, and social aspects of learning to read
(Havighurst, 1952; Kozulin, 2004; Rumelhart, 1977; Vygotsky, 1986). A synopsis of the reading program and the recommendations from the District Blueprint for Literacy and Reading Review Committee was provided. The body of literature was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the reading program implementation because of its significance to reading instruction, professional development, leadership, and student achievement as measured by the Minnesota Academic Standards II (MCAII).
Definition of the Problem
The reading program implemented in this district went through changes in resources and professional development over the past 5 years with no comprehensive evaluation to determine which components were effective and what needs to be adjusted.
Each year the district establishes district specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals and action plans. Using the district goals as a guide, the building and each grade level develops their SMART goals and action plans. This process
includes reviewing the building student data from the previous years to develop a plan to impact student learning. However, this review has been accomplished with minimal emphasis on what teachers’ perceptions of instruction at the classroom level.
The district achievement scores at the study site remained relatively stable from 2006-2008 with approximately 77% of third, fourth, and fifthgrades meeting or
exceeding grade level proficiency on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment II for reading. According to the 2011 MCA-II results, 81% of the third, fourth, and fifth grade students met or exceeded grade level proficiency in reading. Although this was a
significant gain, approximately 20% of the third, fourth, and fifth students did not meet grade level proficiency. Determined to increase proficiency, the district goal for the spring of 2012 was set at 85% of the third, fourth, and fifth grade students meeting or exceeding proficiency in reading. However, according to the 2012 MCA-II results, the district did not make their goal of 85%; in fact, there was no significant gain from the year before. The proficiency rate for all third, fourth, and fifth graders taking the reading MCA-II remained at 81%.
Rationale Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level
In the 2012- 2013 school year, 81% of all elementary students in Grades 3-5 at the study site met or exceeded proficiency on the reading MCA-II at the local district. The proficiency for White students was 82.1% compared to the subgroup, English as a second language (ESL), who scored at 47.6% (Minnesota Department of Education, 2012).
These results are cause for concern as the district strives to meet a new state law requiring
all students to achieve grade level proficiency or above by the end of Grade 3 on the new 2010 Minnesota English language arts (ELA) standards (Appendix A) adapted from the National Common Core Standards. The achievement gap in the subgroups as indicated in Figure 1 below needs to be addressed to meet state academic standards.
Note. F/R refers to the free and reduced lunch category, an indication of family economic level.
Figure 1. Comparison of 2012-2013 MCA II reading Grade 3-5 district proficiency for subgroups
The district adopted the balanced literacy framework in 2000 for elementary grades K-5. Resources from Rigby (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) were purchased to support modeled, shared, guided, and independent reading. Staff development was provided on the components of balanced literacy. In 2009, the District Blueprint for Literacy Committee convened and reviewed the student data and the reading program.
The committee found that the proficiency level in reading on MCA-II for 2007, 2008, and
64.4 71.6 2012-‐2013 MCA II Reading
Grade 3-‐5 District Proficiency for Subgroups
2009 was similar, but with a slight decline in the third year. The committee concluded that the balanced literacy framework adopted in 2000 was research-based, currently relevant, and should remain in the reading framework for K-5. However, the committee determined that there was a need to review the current resources that made up the
components of the Balanced Literacy Reading Program. They recommended a committee be formed to review the current literacy resources and the K- 5 scope and sequence to determine the need for additional resources and curriculum document revisions. The Reading Review Committee was formed, made up of district administrators, curriculum specialist, principals, and K-5 teachers.
The district’s Reading Review Committee; under the direction of the curriculum, instruction, and assessment department; convened to examine the student data and reading resources provided since the 2000 adoption. Upon completion of the reading program analysis in 2010, the committee, in collaboration with the curriculum department, made the following recommendations:
• Purchase a whole group instruction resource to provide a K-5 scope and sequence for the explicit teaching of comprehension strategies
• Purchase resources for phonics, spelling, and vocabulary
• Continue using the guided reading resource, The Next Steps in Guided Reading, to provide structure for lesson planning and instruction at each level of learning from pre A, emergent, transitional, and fluent reader
• Require that all teachers engage in guided reading and use the components of the lesson plans
• Focus on the National Reading Panel’s identified five critical areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension
• Provide professional development on whole group instruction, guided reading, and the components of the National Reading Panel for classroom, supplemental, ESL, special education teachers, instructional coaches, and principals
• Develop reading curriculum documents using the Understanding by Design (UbD) format
• Provide professional learning communities (PLCs) and grade-level collaboration time with instructional coaches to further teachers’
understanding of student data and determining the next steps for instruction
• Embed professional development at the building level with instructional coaches providing modeling, team teaching, lesson planning, and instructional decision making to meet the needs of all students
The district addressed each of the nine recommendations for the district reading program during the last 4 years, but the teachers had an interest in further learning in these specific areas.
The district initiative to review the student data, current reading program, and professional development opportunities to meet the needs of administrators and teachers in providing students grade level proficiency in reading was timely. The state of
Minnesota applied and was given a waiver from the No Child Left Behind (2001)
legislation to be effective in February 2012. However, to ensure that students maintained consistent progress to grade level, the state legislature signed into law on July 2011 the Chapter 11 Omnibus E-12 Education Act, Article 2, Subd.1 titled Educational Excellence law. This law states “that all students are reading at or above grade level no later than the end of third grade” (Minnesota Legislative Summary, 2011, p. 2). The law also mandates the use of scientifically based reading instruction and intervention methods. The
Minnesota law requires grade-level proficiency in reading by the end of Grade 3 for all students by following a given plan of action that (a) identifies students who are not reading at grade level before the end of Grade 2; (b) notifies parents annually of each student not at grade level, as well as notifying them of the reading related services provided and strategies for parents to use in helping their children; (c) provides
interventions for students; and (d) identifies and meets professional development needs.
The law requires districts to have assessment tools that identify and evaluate students’
needs and provides designated interventions to accelerate students’ progress in all components of reading. In addition, the district was required to develop a literacy plan and post it on the district web site. This new law provides the district with literacy incentive aid that is based on third grade proficiency and growth aid tied to the percentage of fourth grade students who make medium to high growth on the reading MCA-III.
The state law, along with the national policy of No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation, will continue to shape the reading program in the district and districts across
the United States. Although these policies are controversial due to the 100% student proficiency expectation, teachers use data to inform instruction focused on proficiency for all students and to understand the importance of closing the achievement gap. The difference between the state law and the No Child Left Behind legislation is that national legislation has sanctions; whereas, the state law provides for literacy incentive money. No Child Left Behind legislation sanctions increase in severity over time. When entering into sanctions for the first year, schools that have not met adequate yearly progress (AYP) are placed on a watch list (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Each consecutive year the school does not make AYP, additional sanctions are added. In the first year that a school does not make AYP, they are required to offer students the option of attending another school that has made AYP with transportation provided (No Child Left Behind, 2001). The second year supplemental services are offered for any student who qualifies for free and reduced lunches. The third year the school undergoes fundamental restructuring. Schools that have not met AYP for the fifth and last year will be converted to a charter school, turned over to a management company, or be taken over by the state (No Child Left Behind, 2001).
In contrast, the state law provides literacy incentives to schools that are eligible for aid based on the number of students who are proficient at the end of Grade 3 called Proficiency Aid and Growth Aid; this aid is based on the growth between third and fourth grade in reading skills. Proficiency aid is equal to the proficiency allowance times the number of students who meet or exceed the Third Grade Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment averaged across the previous three assessment administrations multiplied by
$530 (Laws of Minnesota for 2012). Similarly, growth aid is equal to the number of students making medium or high growth on the Fourth Grade Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment averaged across the previous 3 years multiplied by $530 (Laws of Minnesota for 2012). These scores are both based on the student count as of October 1 of the
previous fiscal year (Laws of Minnesota for 2012, 2013). The district has the potential of receiving over 2 million dollars of literacy incentive aid in the first year (Minnesota Department of Education, 2012).
The Minnesota law that provides for student proficiency by third grade is an accountability measure that requires district level administrators, building administrators, and teachers to be knowledgeable about their reading program at the district and building level in order to make decisions that will affect student performance. The district’s goal is to comply with the state law; therefore, they are committed to providing materials,
leadership, and staff development to ensure teacher success in increasing student proficiency to grade level and beyond. The purpose of reviewing the current reading program was to determine what was in place that provides teachers and administrators the support needed to meet the expectation of the new law. This formative program
evaluation study provided the necessary data on teachers’, coaches’, and principals’
perceptions of the K-5 reading program implementation. It is important to have feedback from these key stakeholders on the essential components of the reading program
implementation, which includes reading resources, curriculum documents, staff
development, leadership support, and the impact on student achievement. The feedback and data analysis will be used to influence decisions on curriculum revisions, focus for
future staff development, and leadership training in literacy to ensure the district reading program meets the needs of the teachers to assist students in meeting reading proficiency.
Successful implementation of the reading program may help in closing the achievement gap for subgroups.
Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature
Children who fall behind in first grade have a 1 in 8 chance of catching up to grade level without extraordinary interventions (Juel, C., 1994). Also, 88 % of children who were deficient in word recognition in the first grade were poor readers in fourth grade. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 2009) scores, U.S. fourth graders were below proficiency in the following student groups: (a) all students 67%, (b) low-income students 83%, and (c) moderate to high-income students 55 %. There is a difference in the number of students who score below proficiency by subgroup: (a) White 58%, (b) Black 84%, (c) Hispanic 83%, (d) Asian Pacific 51%, and (e) American Indian 80%. At the state level, 68% of White students were proficient in reading as opposed to 28% of Black students. Minnesota has the second largest achievement gap in the nation.
Millions of U.S. children are advancing to fourth grade without learning to read proficiently when reading is a significant predictor of student success in school, and a lack of reading proficiency is a predictor of the dropout rate. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2006) stated that 7,000 students drop out of high school per day because they lack basic skills in reading. Further, Foley (2001) stated that the reading level of
incarcerated youth is 2 years below those of nondelinquent youth, indicating that these
children were struggling in reading during their educational journey. In the American College Testing (ACT), only 52% of all students taking the test scored at a minimum or above proficiency in reading (Condition of College and Career Readiness Reports, 2011).
In Minnesota, 64% of all students tested scored at or above proficiency in reading. The scores for the ACT in Minnesota are reflective of the national concern for literacy
proficiency of some subgroups. Also, only 51% of students are coming ready to meet the demands of kindergarten academic achievement. These are students are at risk in the school system, and the system needs to respond. The lack of proficiency in reading affects students’ life choices and the economy of the nation.
In 2010, the state adopted the Common Core Standards in ELA (Appendix A) in its entirety and added provisions to meet statutory requirements and stakeholders’
recommendations. The Minnesota 2010 Academic Standards in ELA provide the grade-level benchmarks that students advancing through the grades need to meet or exceed proficiency. A key standard in the 2010 MN ELA standards being discussed is Standard 10, Text Complexity. The inclusion of this standard was due to the recommendation of the ACT (2007) review that indicated that students were not proficient due to the challenge of text complexity. Therefore, Standard 10 Text Complexity mandates that each grade level must correspond with a lexile level. The teachers should scaffold student learning in grade level or near grade level text to provide students the opportunity of reading at their highest level. Implementation of these literacy standards is critical in closing the achievement gap. The district has written curriculum documents aligned with the Common Core Standards to provide a viable curriculum for Grades K-5. The
curriculum is coupled with professional development for teachers to gain an
understanding of the ELA standards, curriculum documents, the five pillars of reading, and the use of student reading data to inform instruction. As Lochlear (Laureate
Education, Inc., 2006) stated, there is a dilemma of balancing equity, excellence, and accountability but morally and ethically “failure should not be an option.” All students have the right to learn, and the school system needs to determine best practices for students to meet reading proficiency standards.
Definitions
The following terms and definitions were used throughout this study.
Action plan: Plans indicating the steps a teacher will take to accomplish his or her SMART goals.
Balanced literacy framework: Reading instruction using whole group (modeled and shared), flexible small group instruction, and independent reading to facilitate instruction in reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).
Blueprint for literacy: A K-12 District Literacy Committee with the purpose of directing the curriculum, instruction, and assessment to support student achievement in literacy district-wide.
Comprehension: Thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text that creates understanding (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000).
Five pillars of effective reading instruction: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension identified by the National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000).
Fluency: Reading orally with speed, accuracy, and expression (NICHHD, 2000).
Guided reading: Reading groups of six or fewer students engaged with the teacher in reading levels; readers are focused on reading skills that match their needs (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Richardson, 2009).
Instructional coach: A teacher on special assignment trained in coaching and facilitating PLCS to provide instructional support to teachers in the building.
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment II (MCAII): Minnesota State Reading MCA II is aligned to the 2003 Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in language arts.
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment III (MCAIII): Minnesota State Reading MCA III is aligned to the 2010 Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in language arts.
Phonemic awareness: Skill at hearing and producing separate sounds of words (NICHHD, 2000).
Phonics: Manipulation of letter sound relationships (NICHHD, 2000).
Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals: Used for establishing statements about a desired outcome.
Struggling reader: A student who cannot complete grade-level literacy tasks. In this study, struggling readers included students who were performing below grade level on the State Comprehensive Assessment.
Understanding by design: A 3-stage framework for curriculum design using the backward design to center learning on big ideas, essential questions, assessment, and a learning plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).
Vocabulary: Knowledge of the meaning of words (NICHHD, 2000).
Significance
The significance of the study will be determined according to the following: local applications, professional applications, and impact on social justice. Evaluating the reading program included reviewing district reading data, reviewing core curriculum resources, professional development provided to increase knowledge in teaching reading, and effective and efficient implementation of the curriculum. Marzano (2003) concluded that the synthesis of research data can be used to reveal a viable curriculum that has the most impact on student achievement. A curriculum that is viable means that the learning and skills are considered essential for all students; school personnel must be capable of ensuring that essential learning occurs for all. Evaluating teacher perceptions of the curriculum resources, leadership, and staff development will provide feedback on the reading program used to ensure proficiency for all students.
Local Applications
This research study could provide feedback to solve a local problem in the
district. Student success in reading in elementary schools impacts student achievement in future education. Providing a solid foundation in reading will lead to increased academic success in subject areas. The Minnesota Education Bill requires that every district have a plan to have every child reading at or above grade level no later than the end of Grade 3.
The district must determine the next steps to provide administrators and teachers a research-based reading program designed to have differentiated learning in the core classroom to minimize the number of students who will need interventions. In addition, the district must close the achievement gap for students of color and students in the free and reduced lunch subgroups. The results from this program evaluation provided data that will help identify program strengths and areas of concern. This evaluation will provide direction for future decision making.
Professional Applications
The results of this formative study provided information about the professional application of best practices for teaching reading in Grades K-5. The impact of the
The results of this formative study provided information about the professional application of best practices for teaching reading in Grades K-5. The impact of the